By Russell Smith

Joseph Bray recently did something we wager he will never do again:  he forgot his wife Sonja’s birthday. She took umbrage at this flagrant violation of a Marriage Commandment – and a fight ensued. Things turned physical, Mrs. Bray called the police, and when they arrived, she told them that that her husband had pushed her onto the couch, grabbed her near the neck and balled up his fist, though he didn’t strike her. Mr. Bray was arrested and charged with battery.

After a night in jail, the couple appeared before Judge John “Jay” Hurley for a “first appearance hearing.” Mrs. Bray informed Judge Hurley that she loved her husband, she wasn’t hurt and she didn’t fear him.

It was just before Valentine’s Day, and since this seemed like a “minor incident,” Judge Hurley decided to play Cupid. He agreed to release Mr. Bray on his own recognizance – but only if he took his wife out for a birthday celebration, with a card, flowers, a Red Lobster dinner, and bowling.

The story quickly became a media darling, appearing on ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NPR. It was even satirized by “Saturday Night Live.” (On Weekend Update, Seth Meyers discussed the story and deadpanned:  “Red Lobster—where people are sentenced to dinner.”) Some pundits felt that Judge’s Hurley’s order was romantic , and some argued that it didn’t take the domestic violence charges against Mr. Bray seriously enough.

And still others wondered: “Can judges really order people to do things like this?”

The Wall Street Journal Law Blog posed the question, but stopped short of answering it. Problematically, the Law Blog’s analysis relied on a case dealing with sentencing a defendant who had already been convicted of a crime – not, as in the Brays’ case, a judge’s power to place conditions on the defendant’s release prior to trial.

So while it is true that a federal appellate court held that it was not a cruel and unusual punishment for a judge to sentence a mail thief to stand outside a post office holding a sign that read: “I stole mail. This is my punishment” – it’s also irrelevant.

In fact, a review of the applicable law reveals that Judge Hurley lacked the authority to order the Brays a birthday dinner.   Read more »

By LASIS Staff

In October, 2010, LASIS wrote a story about the Vandals being sued by Reed Elsevier for use of a logo similar to the one used byVariety, the entertainment business publication.

A few days later, The Vandals’ lawyer (and bassist), wrote back to us at length and we published the group’s reply as a standalone post.

The lovefest wasn’t over.

We wrote back to the Vandals, explaining that while we didn’t completely agree with the group’s version of the facts (there was a settlement agreement that the group had violated), we offered our continued support.

And now we’re happy to report that the lawsuit against the Vandals is, at long last, over.

By LASIS Staff

Above the Law ran a piece today about some no-no’s if you really want your legal career take off.  If you’re an on-duty law clerk for example, you’d best try NOT to watch porn during a rape trial.  If you’re a judge, says ATL, sleeping on the bench during a trial might not be a great idea; a Texas judge had to resign last week for sleeping during a key portion of testimony.

But as LASIS explained last September, if you’re a lawyer you can potentially get a nice snooze in at a hearing for your client, not a problem.

Probably not a good idea to watch porn, though.

By Ashley Davidson

Girl power has new meaning on “Late Night with Jimmy Fallon.”

Paul Tarascio, a former stage manager on the show, claims he was discriminated against for not being a woman, and is suing in the New York State Supreme Court for gender discrimination.

Prior to working for Mr. Fallon, Mr. Tarascio was a stage manager for Conan O Brien’s old late night show. When Conan relocated to California, Mr. Tarascio stayed in New York, and was hired as first stage manager for Jimmy Fallon’s show.

Mr. Tarascio was an employee “at will,” and his duties consisted of managing staff and orchestrating stage activities. He claims that during his time on the Jimmy Fallon show, he had never been criticized for his work.  (That must be nice!)

Then in 2009 Mr. Tarascio was told that he was being demoted to second stage manager.  According to the Complaint, executive producer Michael Shoemaker told him he’d done nothing wrong, it’s just that Mr. Fallon felt “more comfortable” with the woman who was selected to take his place. A woman, according to Mr. Tarascio, who wasn’t very good at her job.  And the show’s director, David Diomedi, allegedly told him that, “Jimmy just prefers to take direction from a woman”, but there was nothing he could do to help Mr. Tarascio — because (can you guess?) he was afraid of losing his job to a woman, as well.

Mr. Tarascio objected to his demotion and was notified, for the first time, of several issues his employer had with his performance. Then in the spring, he was fired.

The media (see here and here) have loved this battle of the sexes case that has a man suing for gender discrimination, but they haven’t weighed in on the case’s merits. LASIS takes a look.  Read more »

By Russell Smith

An Illinois eavesdropping law makes it is a Class 1 felony – carrying a penalty of up to 15 years in prison – to use any device to “hear or record a conversation” involving police, prosecutors, or judges without their permission. Most states have similar eavesdropping laws, but almost all have an exception for recording police conversations when officers have no “expectation of privacy.”

Generally, there is no legal expectation of privacy for conversations that take place on public streets or sidewalks; that’s why New York City doesn’t ban people from taking pictures of terror targets, like train stations or federal offices, so long as the photo is taken from a sidewalk or public street. And that’s why in most states, it’s not criminal for bystanders to whip out their cell phones to film police officers arresting or mistreating people at public protests.

But the Illinois eavesdropping law has no “expectation of privacy” exception. Chicago police have seized on this, using the law as a justification for snatching cell phones and video cameras from Occupy Chicago observers trying to document police misconduct occurring during demonstrations.

At Firedoglake, Kevin Gosztola suggested that the existing Illinois wiretapping law “violates the civil liberties of people in Illinois.” On Slate, Dahlia Lithwick bemoaned the “enormous constitutional problem” posed by the law, especially for journalists. But lost in the media’s disdain is a clear articulation of exactly what constitutional right the eavesdropping law infringes.

LASIS will clarify.   Read more »